Macros and other tools that need syntax privilege used
`(current-code-inspector)' at the module top-level to try to
capture the right code inspector at load time. It's more
consistent to instead use the enclosing module's declaration-time
inspector, and `var-ref->mod-decl-insp' provides that. The
new function works only on references to anonymous variables,
which limits access to the inspector.
The real function name is longer, of course.
The clarification mostly repeats information in the contract,
and we normally avoid that, but the bindings look undocumented
otherwise.
Closes PR 12162
For example,
(define-for-syntax (f x) (g x))
(define-for-syntax (g y) y)
is now allowed. The unbound-variable check for phase 1
and up is delayed until after the module body is partially expanded.
* When `accept-lang?' is #t turn the reader flag on, but otherwise don't
change it
* turn on the `read-accept-reader' flag which is needed after all
* two refactoring typos
* some more reformatting
Shared locking now allowed only on input port, and exclusive
locking is allowed only on output ports, which allows an implementation
via fcntl(...,F_SETLK,...).
Since sets are implemented using the elements as the domain of a hash table,
the following must be true:
* element contracts for (seteq ...) must be flat
* element contracts for (seteqv ...) must be flat
* element contracts for (set ...) must be chaperones, and the resulting
contract is a chaperone contract
Also, change higher-order set/c contracts to be chaperone contracts
due to the new restrictions.
requiring itself into the entered namespace.
This makes it useful in some cases where this require leads to a
dependency cycle, eg (enter! racket/list). It's obviously not useful
for use as-is, since you will not have a bound `enter!' to get out of
the namespace (and possibly no `require' to get it) -- but it is useful
for meta-tools like xrepl. This is why the flag is verbose. `xrepl'
now uses this flag.
Also, the check for valid keywords for the form is now done at runtime
rather than in the macro. This doesn't matter in this case, since the
form is intended for interactive use anyway.
Also, separate the two parts of `enter-load/use-compiled' (it was
defined curried, but didn't use it).
Use the new functions in `syntax-case'; the benefit is small, and
it's mostly useful as hint to the optimizer that the operation
can be dropped if the result isn't used
I originally picked "under" as the preposition to go before
a platform name, but obviously you should build "on" a
platform, and "under" suddenly annoys me. The choice of "on"
is now codified in the documentation style guide. Meanwhile,
"Unix" insted of "X" seems more clear and consistent in the
`racket/gui' docs.
More usefully, this patch also fixes a few out-of-date
platform-specific claims.
by default; a new optional argument restores the old behavior
(but the default behavior is consistent with the old docs and with
the vast majority of existing uses)
The implementation is ugly for performance reasons. A new primitive
`prop:arity-incomplete' property determines when to return #f for
`procedure-arity-includes?' in default mode. A nicer implementation
would be to redefine `procedure-arity-includes?' at the kw-proc level,
but the bytecode optimizer's and JIT's treatment of the built-in
`procedure-arity-includes?' is important. The implementation choice
could be revisited after cross-module inlining is implemented.
Closes PR 11978
The new version fixes some problems with the previous one, most notably
it can create a keyworded function when the last input is is keyworded.
`compose1' is a restricted variant that requires single values in the
composed pipeline -- besides being potentially faster (probably more
if/when there is cross module inlining), it has a semantical
justification, similar to the restricting function call arguments to
return single values, with similar robustness benefits. The
implementation of both is done in a generalized way, and the results can
be faster for both `compose' and `compose1'. (Not by much -- 20% and
30% resp.)
One thing that it could do is to reduce the resulting arity to match the
last given function. I didn't do this since it adds a significant
overhead to the result. (No strong opinion on doing that...)
